ArticleBioethics2021
Collective Reflective Equilibrium in Practice (CREP) and controversial novel technologies.
Article in Bioethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Respectful Debiasing in Democratic Deliberation.Bioethics · 2026Article
- Refining the role of behavioural and social sciences in pandemic response post-COVID-19.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- Parfitian Priority, Gene Therapy, and Disability.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2026Article
- Medical artificial intelligence and the right to health.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and medical futility.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Review
- Article
- Ethical, legal, and social issues of AI use in emergency healthcare: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Cognitive gene enhancements and the capitalist meritocracy.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Autonomy under pressure: a scoping review of social egg freezing in the bottom quintile of the gender gap index.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Japanese attitudes toward human brain organoid research: broad support amid ethical concerns.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Justifiability and AI: putting explainability in its place.AI & society · 2026Article
- Goodness behind a wheel: moral judgment in realistic traffic simulations featuring Agents, Deeds, and Consequences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A survey of public attitudes toward secondary research governance oversight: Evidence from Singapore's TRUST platform.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- Against Public-Facing Religious Bio-Restrictionism.Bioethics · 2025Article
- Singaporean attitudes to cognitive enhancement: a cross-sectional survey.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Should We Use Behavioural Predictions in Organ Allocation?Bioethics · 2025Article
- Polygenic risk scores and embryonic screening: considerations for regulation.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Does Humanness Matter? An Ethical Evaluation of Sharing Care Work with Social Robots.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Collective Reflective Equilibrium, Algorithmic Bioethics and Complex Ethics.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2025Article
- Debate: Should Parents be able to Request Non-Resuscitation for All Extremely Premature Newborn Infants?Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate how data about public preferences may be used to inform policy around the use of controversial novel technologies, using public preferences about autonomous vehicles (AVs) as a case study. We first summarize the recent 'Moral Machine' study, which generated preference data from millions of people regarding how they think AVs should respond to emergency situations. We argue that while such preferences cannot be used to directly inform policy, they should not be disregarded. We defend an approach that we call 'Collective Reflective Equilibrium in Practice' (CREP). In CREP, data on public attitudes function as an input into a deliberative process that looks for coherence between attitudes, behaviours and competing ethical principles. We argue that in cases of reasonable moral disagreement, data on public attitudes should play a much greater role in shaping policies than in areas of ethical consensus. We apply CREP to some of the global preferences about AVs uncovered by the Moral Machines study. We intend this discussion both as a substantive contribution to the debate about the programming of ethical AVs, and as an illustration of how CREP works. We argue that CREP provides a principled way of using some public preferences as an input for policy, while justifiably disregarding others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.